Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Rugby in spotlight over repaint bills

28th June 2001, Page 7
28th June 2001
Page 7
Page 7, 28th June 2001 — Rugby in spotlight over repaint bills
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

Keywords : Haulage, Trailer

• An angry haulier wants to take action against Rugby Cement so that around 100 owner-drivers each left at least £3,000 out of pocket under the terms of a Rugby contract can attempt to reclaim the money. The owner-drivers hail their haulage contracts with Rugby Cement terminated last Christmas following Rugby's decision to appoint TNT as its lead logistics provider". The contracts between Rugby Cement and the owner-drivers stated that upon termination the trailers leased to them by Rugby would be re-sprayed before reissue with the cost charged to the owner-driver.

"This is fine if you are at the end of an eight-year contract but our trailer had only been leased for a few months," says the haulier, who prefers not to be named. "I had signed an eight-year lease deal in the belief that the Rugby contract would continue. The trailer did not need respraying." Each owner-driver was charged 13,295 for the work. The haulier now wants owner-drivers affected to come forward to join him in "taking on" Rugby; another owner-driver says the "tactics of Rugby Cement have upset us".

George Lawson, logistics general manager at Rugby Cement, says: "The re-spraying of trailers following the end of a contract was expressed clearly" to the ownerdrivers. Lawson adds he has only heard of "one complaint on this issue and that is being dealt with".

• Hauliers who wish to contact the haulier concerned can dose care of CM.


People: George Lawson

comments powered by Disqus